Message ID | ZYVE5zMA/0hCcNxV@tucnak |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | lower-bitint: Fix handle_cast ICE [PR113102] | expand |
> Am 22.12.2023 um 09:12 schrieb Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>: > > Hi! > > My recent change to use m_data[save_data_cnt] instead of > m_data[save_data_cnt + 1] when inside of a loop (m_bb is non-NULL) > broke the following testcase. When we create a PHI node on the loop > using prepare_data_in_out, both m_data[save_data_cnt{, + 1}] are > computed and the fix was right, but there are also cases when we in > a loop (m_bb non-NULL) emit a nested cast with too few limbs and > then just use constant indexes for all accesses - in that case > only m_data[save_data_cnt + 1] is initialized and m_data[save_data_cnt] > is NULL. In those cases, we want to use the former. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? Ok > 2023-12-22 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR tree-optimization/113102 > * gimple-lower-bitint.cc (bitint_large_huge::handle_cast): Only > use m_data[save_data_cnt] if it is non-NULL. > > * gcc.dg/bitint-58.c: New test. > > --- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj 2023-12-21 11:13:32.000000000 +0100 > +++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc 2023-12-21 13:28:56.953120687 +0100 > @@ -1491,7 +1491,7 @@ bitint_large_huge::handle_cast (tree lhs > m_data_cnt = tree_to_uhwi (m_data[save_data_cnt + 2]); > if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (rhs_type)) > t = build_zero_cst (m_limb_type); > - else if (m_bb) > + else if (m_bb && m_data[save_data_cnt]) > t = m_data[save_data_cnt]; > else > t = m_data[save_data_cnt + 1]; > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-58.c.jj 2023-12-21 13:33:25.882383838 +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-58.c 2023-12-21 13:32:54.408821172 +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ > +/* PR tree-optimization/113102 */ > +/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */ > +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -O2" } */ > + > +_BitInt(3) a; > +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 4097 > +_BitInt(8) b; > +_BitInt(495) c; > +_BitInt(513) d; > +_BitInt(1085) e; > +_BitInt(4096) f; > + > +void > +foo (void) > +{ > + a -= (_BitInt(4097)) d >> b; > +} > + > +void > +bar (void) > +{ > + __builtin_sub_overflow ((_BitInt(767)) c >> e, 0, &a); > +} > + > +void > +baz (void) > +{ > + _BitInt(768) x = (_BitInt(257))f; > + b /= x >> 0 / 0; /* { dg-warning "division by zero" } */ > +} > +#endif > > Jakub >
--- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj 2023-12-21 11:13:32.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc 2023-12-21 13:28:56.953120687 +0100 @@ -1491,7 +1491,7 @@ bitint_large_huge::handle_cast (tree lhs m_data_cnt = tree_to_uhwi (m_data[save_data_cnt + 2]); if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (rhs_type)) t = build_zero_cst (m_limb_type); - else if (m_bb) + else if (m_bb && m_data[save_data_cnt]) t = m_data[save_data_cnt]; else t = m_data[save_data_cnt + 1]; --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-58.c.jj 2023-12-21 13:33:25.882383838 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-58.c 2023-12-21 13:32:54.408821172 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/113102 */ +/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */ +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -O2" } */ + +_BitInt(3) a; +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 4097 +_BitInt(8) b; +_BitInt(495) c; +_BitInt(513) d; +_BitInt(1085) e; +_BitInt(4096) f; + +void +foo (void) +{ + a -= (_BitInt(4097)) d >> b; +} + +void +bar (void) +{ + __builtin_sub_overflow ((_BitInt(767)) c >> e, 0, &a); +} + +void +baz (void) +{ + _BitInt(768) x = (_BitInt(257))f; + b /= x >> 0 / 0; /* { dg-warning "division by zero" } */ +} +#endif